• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hockey Canada in the Government Crosshairs


Det. Sgt. Katherine Dann of the LPS's force's sexual assault and child abuse unit also addressed the news conference, where reporters also were given time to ask questions.

She was not involved in the initial investigation, and spoke about circumstances surrounding police reopening the case.

"It was determined there were additional steps that could advance the investigation."

Dann said a new team of investigators was assigned after the case was reopened.

"Additional witnesses were spoken to and we collected more evidence," she said. "Some of this information was not available when the investigation concluded in 2018. This was one investigation, not two."

I wonder what the new information and evidence is.
 
The Bread Guy said:
Also, a bit of analysis from a former Canadian Olympic/Commonewealth Games gold-medal rowing team member ...
theconversation.com

Hockey Canada’s issues go beyond a few bad apples — the entire system needs to be re-engineered

Hockey Canada has a new board and CEO, but it won’t make a difference unless the systemic issues are addressed through our sport leadership and governance structures.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
I take a bit of issue with some of the comments in that article.

Greater transparency needed​

Too often, coaches and organizational leaders obscure criteria and procedures to allow for subjective decision-making. An excellent coach posts performance targets, criteria and measures early and often, and athlete performance outcomes daily and publicly.

This approach can be scaled to fit any kind of sport organization or group. Sport Canada must ensure evaluation criteria are comprehensive, public, objective and grounded within standards of practice.

All well and good, for certain sports, but sports like Hockey, Soccer, and Football don’t really fit into a single category type of evaluation. I’m sure it works for rowing or other A to B timed sports, but not dynamic team sports.

I played hockey for many years, now coach and Ref, and while doing evaluations for teams, yes you can put a bunch of metrics on a board (we do that) but you also need to see how they actually play on the ice, how they can read and react to plays and how potential teammates gel together on the ice.

Can you be transparent about that, sure, however some players and parents still won’t like it.
 
I coach competitive U11 and U13. We rarely bench players on performance (we will cut the bench in situations that would allow us to play an extra game, in the third period of a tournament for example), but we do bench players for attitude. You may be the best player on the team, if you have a terrible attitude or show a lack of respect for teammates, coaches, parents, refs or the other team, we’ll bench you. Most likely, none of the player I coach will ever make it to pro-level. Our aim is to develop quality humans in a framework that they love.
 
SupersonicMax said:
I coach competitive U11 and U13. We rarely bench players on performance (we will cut the bench in situations that would allow us to play an extra game, in the third period of a tournament for example), but we do bench players for attitude. You may be the best player on the team, if you have a terrible attitude or show a lack of respect for teammates, coaches, parents, refs or the other team, we’ll bench you. Most likely, none of the player I coach will ever make it to pro-level. Our aim is to develop quality humans in a framework that they love.
Click to expand...
I coach Varsity HS as well as 14 and 16U Travel (competitive down here), I will bench for performance, and attitude. I agree with the aim, but I also want to reward performance, so folks who help the team get more ice time.

As a Ref I just kick people off the bench for attitude ;)
 
KevinB said:
... I played hockey for many years, now coach and Ref, and while doing evaluations for teams, yes you can put a bunch of metrics on a board (we do that) but you also need to see how they actually play on the ice, how they can read and react to plays and how potential teammates gel together on the ice.

Can you be transparent about that, sure, however some players and parents still won’t like it.
Click to expand...
Seen re: some stuff being subjective, but like with any group that has discretion taken away, the keeners like you & so many others (the vast majority) are suffering for the few weiners who used discretion in a bad way - such is the way of SO many new rules everywhere, right? :(
 
KevinB said:
I take a bit of issue with some of the comments in that article.

Greater transparency needed​

Too often, coaches and organizational leaders obscure criteria and procedures to allow for subjective decision-making. An excellent coach posts performance targets, criteria and measures early and often, and athlete performance outcomes daily and publicly.

This approach can be scaled to fit any kind of sport organization or group. Sport Canada must ensure evaluation criteria are comprehensive, public, objective and grounded within standards of practice.

All well and good, for certain sports, but sports like Hockey, Soccer, and Football don’t really fit into a single category type of evaluation. I’m sure it works for rowing or other A to B timed sports, but not dynamic team sports.

I played hockey for many years, now coach and Ref, and while doing evaluations for teams, yes you can put a bunch of metrics on a board (we do that) but you also need to see how they actually play on the ice, how they can read and react to plays and how potential teammates gel together on the ice.

Can you be transparent about that, sure, however some players and parents still won’t like it.
Click to expand...
The reaction from some is to "always burn it to the ground and reinvent the system, and if good people get caught up in it too bad"

I watched some talking head last night and that is the impression I got from her.
 
The Bread Guy said:
Seen re: some stuff being subjective, but like with any group that has discretion taken away, the keeners like you & so many others (the vast majority) are suffering for the few weiners who used discretion in a bad way - such is the way of SO many new rules everywhere, right? :(
Click to expand...
I’m not suggesting there not be rules, but that transparency in team selection for dynamic team sports isn’t as cut and dried as the rowing guy suggests.
 
KevinB said:
I’m not suggesting there not be rules, but that transparency in team selection for dynamic team sports isn’t as cut and dried as the rowing guy suggests.
Click to expand...
Case in point:

When Carson played AA one of the teammates looked really good in the drills but was a terrible game time guy. Zero Hockey Sense and he always knew better than the coaches and teammates. People wondered why he was chosen and it was "he looked good in practice and drills".
 
Kilted said:

I think that this was what everyone was expecting. There were a few holes in the Crown's case in this one. Reactions seem to be pretty muted, but there are a few people upset.

We are getting the believe survivors vs those who point out that false accusations occur. The real takeaway from this is that everyone involved but themselves in a bad position that night.
Click to expand...
“A few” is an understatement.
 
Kilted said:

I think that this was what everyone was expecting. There were a few holes in the Crown's case in this one. Reactions seem to be pretty muted, but there are a few people upset.

We are getting the believe survivors vs those who point out that false accusations occur. The real takeaway from this is that everyone involved but themselves in a bad position that night.
Click to expand...
Bottom line they were found "not guilty". They were not found to be innocent. Big difference.

In any case Hockey Canada did not cover itself in glory and rightly needs some correction.
 
OldSolduer said:
Bottom line they were found "not guilty". They were not found to be innocent. Big difference.
Click to expand...
They were found not guilty and the complainant was found not credible or reliable with a constantly changing story. You should read the judge's decision, the complainant was admonished for telling "her truth" not "the truth" and had multiple inconsistencies with her story over the years with various legal fillings all being different. The judge also took the "believe the complainant no matter what" mantra to task for flying in the face of justice.

Constantly saying that people are "not guilty" but "not innocent" is a bad take that devalues rule of law in Canada.
 
PuckChaser said:
They were found not guilty and the complainant was found not credible or reliable with a constantly changing story. You should read the judge's decision, the complainant was admonished for telling "her truth" not "the truth" and had multiple inconsistencies with her story over the years with various legal fillings all being different. The judge also took the "believe the complainant no matter what" mantra to task for flying in the face of justice.

Constantly saying that people are "not guilty" but "not innocent" is a bad take that devalues rule of law in Canada.
Click to expand...
You make some good points but the guys were not totally without blame. We discussed this at work today and we all took a lesson from the perspectives we at at 18 and now.
 
PuckChaser said:
Constantly saying that people are "not guilty" but "not innocent" is a bad take that devalues rule of law in Canada.
Click to expand...

Very much in agreement with this.
Canadian law has the presumption of innocence at its core. It’s part of the Charter. There is no need to declare an accused as innocent, that is understood to be fact until the crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.
Hence why it’s guilty or not guilty.

Society has grown somewhat fond of the saying that they the accused was declared “not guilty” but not “innocent”. That is a key indicator that society has in some aspects begun to lose sight of our core legal principles.

The Judge was right to call out that drift towards a presumption of guilt.

Charterpedia - Section 11(d) – Presumption of innocence

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
www.justice.gc.ca www.justice.gc.ca
 
OldSolduer said:
You make some good points but the guys were not totally without blame. We discussed this at work today and we all took a lesson from the perspectives we at at 18 and now.
Click to expand...
In this instance I think some poor decisions were made but with the totality of facts now out there, it looks like they were taken advantage of as minor celebrities. E.M. then made a complaint, stopped cooperating with police so she didn't have to testify and then went right into getting a settlement cheque. The fact that she used the words "her truth" shocks me to the core. There's only one truth in a court, the truth.
 
lenaitch said:
Ah, the third world country approach. Maybe they should be arrested.
Click to expand...
We had a case here where a Correctional Officer was charged with "Failing to provide the necessities of life" .

The inmate died during a hard extraction. The RCMP investigated - they said no charges. The independent Crown from Saskatchewan said the same.
The attorney (a well known indigenous rights lawyer aka Ambulance Chaser) representing the family found a Crown in Ontario who said there are grounds to charge him, so he was charged, and underwent a trial, but not before the media outed him by name and town he lived in. To say we Corrections types have issues with the media is understating it.

BTW he was found "not guilty".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
UNDER SIEGE 9 - Last Train to Gaspe
Replies
8
Views
18K
Slim
Slim
Back
Top